'Body shaming'

[gay_Aleks]

That leaves the very significant loophole of not wearing anything at all.

It wouldn't be Bulgaria without a blatant hole in court rulings.

 

[aelf]

I wouldn't call this particular ad "body shaming". For me the difference is in presentation.

Not shaming: Showing somebody fit and "beautiful" and selling the ability to be like them.

Shaming: Showing somebody fat and unattractive and selling the ability to not be like that anymore.

The former case is giving people an ideal to aspire to, a theoretical "perfect you" that you can obtain if only you buy our product. We can argue about whether that ideal is realistic or even desirable, but the underlying message is "you can be better if you try".

The latter case is telling people "how you are now is not good enough and you're a bad person if you don't change" (so buy our stuff and become a good person). The underlying message is "you are not good enough on your own".

It's a subtle distinction maybe, but an important one IMO. Of course people with existing self-esteem problems are unlikely to take either ad well, but that's a deeper problem.

I do agree with your distinction.

However, there are clearly people who see them as two sides of the same coin. And it's not unreasonable. If you're constantly being sold that a certain kind of appearance is good to the exclusion of pretty much everything else, then by implication you're being told that as long as you don't attain that you're ugly. This is an argument I can buy.

It's just that the psychological impact of advertisements has been studied and is understood to some degree. A lot of this stuff is subconscious - you can't control it.

Okay, but there are also studies that show audience members respond differently to the same images. This stuff isn't deterministic. Otherwise, any well-executed propaganda would be 100% effective. But that doesn't seem to be the case in reality.

 

[warpus]

Well sure, it affects everyone differently, but in the end it's not really possible to insulate yourself from the effects of advertising. It works on a level you can't control - there's no telling how it's going to affect you personally, but to get away from it completely, you'd have to become a libertarian and move to Antarctica, cutting yourself off from society completely (or something).

 

[Leoreth]

I agree in principle that just because something has been the case all along doesn't mean it should continue to be. But, in this case, what I meant was that this is something that will probably always be the case because it isn't just about toppling a particular idea or set of ideas. It would be more akin to saying we can abolish religion/faith rather than 'traditional gender roles' - I just don't see the former happening because it's something like a persistent but ever-changing theme rather than a set of ideas that can be deconstructed.

Really? It's certainly naive to think that beauty standards can be abolished entirely, but that doesn't mean it's impossible to broaden them and make them more inclusive.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I'm sure some of you have seen the recent controversy over this:

What's your reaction?

I think matching the bikini color to the background was a poor decision. Sex sells, so a contrasting color to draw attention to her genital region and breasts would have been more effective.

As to the real intention of your question...the fact is that this works. All the gnashing of teeth in the world over whether they should or shouldn't market this way is irrelevant until you come up with a way to address the reality that it works. I don't like that it works, but there are a whole lot of other things I do not like about my species that I can't change either, and wouldn't want to take responsibility for changing if I could.

 

[warpus]

It's working much much better than they could ever dream of. EVERYBODY seems to be talking about this stupid inconsequential thing.

 

[BvBPL]

I'm pretty 'pro-feminist' and I'm certainly not a fan of the consumerist culture that produces this stuff, but I must say I have a hard time seeing individual ads like this as a problem.

I'd say it is not the effect of an individual ad that is problematic but the aggregate effect of many of these ads suggesting that the only definition of beauty is the beach body displayed. The cumulative effect of these ads becomes that the viewer sees the beach body as the only acceptable body, and if she does not have a beach body then she is not beautiful and therefore unlovable.

Of course there are problems with the counter argument about social standards of beauty. The contemporary argument against the advertising definition of beauty phrases itself as being about "real women." Do a search for #realwomen on Facebook and you'll find that in many cases real women means fat women. The real women movement claim to celebrate all body types and show images of what are supposed to be attractive fat women to demonstrate this.

This is problematic. I find the apotheosis of the beach body to be troubling because it does affect self-image for people who do not find in that model, but the notion that we should celebrate obesity and that real women are fat is even more bothersome. I am not in favor of shaming people based on their bodies, but I certainly do not think we should be celebrating fat. Fat is unhealthy. Fat is, for the adult, something of a choice (I realize that is a controversial stance and I am not absolute in that notion, hence the qualification.) Real women don't have to be fat, but the focus of real women on fat women suggests otherwise.

 

[Traitorfish]

Just as a little thought experiment, you could take your OP and only change the following sentence:

I think it's pretty normal for society to have (subjective) standards for physical beauty gender roles.

and it could almost work as a defense of say, 60s style "be a good house wife and use our household appliances" ads (I think everyone knows what I mean, if not I could dig some up). And most people flinch when they see those these days.

Yes, but you could change "it's normal to eat meat" to "it's normal to eat children". The truth of a statement is contained within its syntax.

This isn't "body shaming", it's an ad using society's standard of beauty to sell a product.

Any body they put on the ad would be making a value statement about that body.

I don't know if it's that simple. The presentation of the "good body" in the advert alongside the text suggests that this goodness is expected, and that many bodies have not yet achieved this goodness. It's not simply saying "this body is beautiful", it's casting bodies which do not meet these standards as existing in a permanent state of failure.

I think that's why this advert in particular has provoked such a hostile response, the fact that it so blunty asserts a distinction between the good body of the model and the presumably not-good body of the viewer. I'm not sure if it deserve this response, because this subtext is present in most adverts, but the difference is that in most adverts you have to place it within the context of a whole array of adverts repeating the same message, while in this case the subtext is contained entirely within the advert itself. What most adverts let hang in the air between themselves and the viewer, unspoken, this advert makes explicit: "there is an ideal body, you don't have it, buy WonderGloop".

And I wonder if that's the real source of the outrage, not what the advert is saying it, but that is saying it so freely? It places critics of the beauty industry in a defensive position, makes them realise that they don't actually have a lot of influence, that the advertising trend typified by Dove's "real women" campaigns are just that, trends, the exploitation of a marketing niche and not really reflective of any underlying cultural change.

 

[aelf]

Well sure, it affects everyone differently, but in the end it's not really possible to insulate yourself from the effects of advertising. It works on a level you can't control - there's no telling how it's going to affect you personally, but to get away from it completely, you'd have to become a libertarian and move to Antarctica, cutting yourself off from society completely (or something).

Affecting everyone differently also includes affecting everyone to different extents. That was my original point.

Really? It's certainly naive to think that beauty standards can be abolished entirely, but that doesn't mean it's impossible to broaden them and make them more inclusive.

But that begs the question... Are beauty standards not broad enough? Why can't people just ignore this particular standard and focus on those that are better for them? How does this particular type of advertising cause harm?

 

[warpus]

It's in style to be outraged about social issues these days, even if they're really inconsequential. That's why people are jumping on this, I think.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I still think the absurdity here is the notion that their product will have a material impact on the alteration of anybody's body that would not be provided by good nutrition from any source coupled with exercise. I would also argue that this notion is implicit due to the nature of the advertisement; were it to suggest that their supplement allowed one to last longer in exercise (and not be lying), or attempt to represent that it is easier to work into a healthier daily regiment than alternative choices, the ad would not appear this way. Instead, the ad is presenting (based on social standards) an idealized goal in an attempt to sell a product that, as far as anybody can demonstrate, is of minimal-to-no significance in determining progress to that goal, should one actively aspire towards it.

You can consume as much of that stuff as you want, and unless it inadvertently triggers unhealthy weight loss through vomiting or something (lol) it won't have a material impact on weight loss or toning absent modifications to exercise and current dietary habits...and if one makes those modifications I suspect they'd be hard pressed to demonstrate that their product is going to improve the end result in a way that any alternative that is also nutritionally sound would fail to allow.

To me, this aspect of advertising based around body image is more vile than a perceived impact of "shaming", because its implication (as well as other plans you see in magazines and similar products) is misleading.

This is in stark contrast to some advertisements for exercise equipment, baked pie, game consoles, toothpastes, or vehicles. Any of those might or might not deliver to the extent promised, but what they directly or implicitly promise (good workouts, good taste, solid gameplay experience, cleaner/whiter teeth, safety/performance/etc) is directly related to what is at least possible to attain from good versions of those things.

Consuming protein/nutrition products will never give you a "beach body" (however you want to define it) on their own. You can actually consume enough of them to get fat. Using exercise equipment might actually help you improve muscle mass.

For that matter, so might protein. Advertisement has an effect on everyone, but ads like this have a negative effect on me. Given the choice between this or something that simply lists its ingredients/calories/protein (and kinds of protein) as selling points, I will consistently choose the latter, all other things being equal.

 

[Kozmos]

What they often don't get while young, though, is the reassurance that someone likes them "just for themselves" and not for their appearance. Which is going to change - and hardly ever for the better - with time anyway.

Not that I feel particularly sorry for physically attractive people.

Pretty people have more options, eventually they stumble on someone who likes them for themselves. By the time their relative beauty fades they are more than well positioned to deal with it due to accumulated benefits.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Pretty people have more options, eventually they stumble on someone who likes them for themselves. By the time their relative beauty fades they are more than well positioned to deal with it due to accumulated benefits.

I'll never forget the advice a friend gave me long ago, because it made me chuckle even back then:

"Nobody looks good forever, so it makes sense to pick someone you enjoy living with". That was pretty interesting advice considering we were 19.

There's something to be said for feeling attraction though, regardless of the reason for feeling it.

 

[Cheetah]

This isn't "body shaming", it's an ad using society's standard of beauty to sell a product.

Any body they put on the ad would be making a value statement about that body.

I don't know if it's that simple. The presentation of the "good body" in the advert alongside the text suggests that this goodness is expected, and that many bodies have not yet achieved this goodness. It's not simply saying "this body is beautiful", it's casting bodies which do not meet these standards as existing in a permanent state of failure.

May I just point out that nowhere in the ad is the body of the model pointed out as a 'beach ready' body. That conclusion is is generated by the interpretation of the person watching the ad. In theory, the body in the ad could be a non-'beach ready' body.

People who think that the body in question is 'beach ready', obviously agree on what a 'beach ready' body is, or at least have accepted what it means. And seen through such an interpretation, the people protesting this ad are merely angry that an uncomfortable truth was uttered.

And as far as I am concerned, my body is not quite beach ready yet, but I'm working towards it. I've let it deteriorate for the last two years, but I finally started to eat less and exercise a few months ago. Now my side fat is mostly gone and I only have a small beer gut left, and in another two months that too should be of a more decent size. An added bonus is that my strength and stamina has increased a lot as well!

There is such a thing as a 'beach ready' body, and it's really up to people themselves whether or not they want to achieve and maintain such a body. Arguing that all bodies are inherently beach ready is fighting over semantics, everyone seems to know what a 'beach ready' body actually suggests. And complaining that being reminded of which body you choose to have makes you upset, is really quite stupid. People and companies have the right to free speech, even if others can end up having their feelings hurt.

 

[warpus]

In an age where "Look at these boobs! Now buy our butter" is an accepted advertising paradigm, it's a bit silly when people get all upset over something like this. I mean, it's fine, but I see this sort of thing everyday, and nobody seems to care.

 

[Leoreth]

Yes, but you could change "it's normal to eat meat" to "it's normal to eat children". The truth of a statement is contained within its syntax.

Yeah, so it stands to reason the statement itself is not a very good argument if you can literally insert anything for X?

But that begs the question... Are beauty standards not broad enough? Why can't people just ignore this particular standard and focus on those that are better for them? How does this particular type of advertising cause harm?

It's not just advertising, it's a phenomenon present in all media. And media shape the way we and others see the world and in turn, ourselves.

It's nice if you have a strong enough personality to ignore all this and set your own standards for yourself, while (seemingly) everyone around you is telling you that you should be different. But not everyone is that lucky, especially teenagers.

 

[Traitorfish]

Yeah, so it stands to reason the statement itself is not a very good argument if you can literally insert anything for X?

Well, no, that's what I'm saying: being able to snowclone a statement has no bearing on the truth of the statement. Compare "the sky is blue" and "the sky is green"; the truth of one statement is not invalidated by the falsehood of the other simply because they share a syntactic structure.

In this case, the truth or falsehood of the statement "it's normal for a society to have beauty standards" is independent of the truth or falsehood "it's normal for a society to have gender roles", because the meaning and thus the truthfulness of each claim depends on the words which are used, and not simply the order of nouns, verbs and adjectives.

 

[Leoreth]

Oh, okay, got it.

I was interpreting the thrust of the argument as "we all have subjective standards so this particular subjective standard is okay".

 

[warpus]

It's nice if you have a strong enough personality to ignore all this and set your own standards for yourself, while (seemingly) everyone around you is telling you that you should be different. But not everyone is that lucky, especially teenagers.

I agree, but there are soooo many examples of this sort of thing in the media, and nobody really seems to care all that much.. making me think that this particular example is just "the cause of the week" or something.

 

[Narz]

Anyone see the Simpsons Halloween Special where folks just stop paying attention to the advertisement mascots & they go crazy but eventually die?

Advertisements are mostly evil but what can you do? Society will never stop men from desiring hot women & women from wanting to be hot. This is far older than gyms or shady fat-burners.